The issue before the court was Martin's attempt to get the charges against him dismissed because he claimed the court had no authority over him. Although he seemed to claim he isn't a sovereign the court obviously thinks differently. At least the court refers to a recent Freeman-On-The-Land criminal decision for guidance but Martin, our defendant, claims he has nothing to do with them. However his position espouces a lot of sovereign views such as;

Mr. Martin questioned–and continues to question– the existence of Canada as a national entity capable of making laws, and questioned similarly the existence of the Province of Nova Scotia as a political subdivision of Canada. He has questioned the standing of the Sovereign in Right of Canada to commence a proceeding against him. He has questioned the application of laws of Canada to his person and to his conduct. He has questioned the exemption of certain ecclesiastical entities from the application of various legislative provisions regarding taxation. He has questioned the standing of the attorney general of Canada and his agents to carry a prosecution against him. He has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to try him, and has questioned the source of my authority to preside over his trial. Mr. Martin’s applications for disclosure were dismissed as not raising triable issues.
[10] In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Martin claims exemption from the law as he was not working under a government policy or program or performing a function of government. He asserts that, because of this, the government has no jurisdiction over him. This is clearly not correct, and arises from a misunderstanding of the effect of s. 32 of the Charter.

[15] As in all of Mr. Martin’s previous applications, the pleadings submitted to the Court on this motion were extensive, meticulously prepared and assembled. It is rare for the Court to see this level of presentation, which I am sure represents hours of diligent work by Mr. Martin. Unfortunately, that does not change the fact that there exists no legal basis for the relief Mr. Martin has sought

He picked a real winner to defend him in court but the judge wasn't putting up with that kind of foolishness;

[6] Mr. Martin chose to be represented by an agent who was not a lawyer. This agent, who identified himself as “Patrick”, known alternatively as “Ellis”, stated clearly that he recognized the King James Bible as the only source of law, and embarked on a lengthy inquiry of the Court as to the source of its authority, raising the significance of portraiture of the Sovereign over the bench. As this agent kept getting bogged down in questions and issues that were not properly before the Court, I concluded and ordered that he not be permitted to act as agent.

Canadian judges seem to have infinite patience compared with US judges. The Canadians have had their share of spv'run types -- for a long while David-Wynn: Miller was operating there -- including Canadians who recite in Canadian courts US law such as "HJR 192" as authority for their positions.

Burnaby49 wrote:He has questioned the standing of the Sovereign in Right of Canada to commence a proceeding against him. [....] He has questioned the standing of the attorney general of Canada and his agents to carry a prosecution against him.

"Standing" is Marc Stevens's favorite losing argument, and it's interesting to see it migrate north, because "standing" in federal courts is based on the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution of the United States, which I think has limited application in Canada.

And yet while it claims not to be a sovrun, it certainly talks the talk and walks the walk as they say. Something or other about ducks from there on as I recall. I guess the Queen's portrait is their version of the gold fringe farrago here.

I keep wondering how they justify their nonsense up north or in England, since the sovrun concept our homegrown varieties espouse don't exist in either England or Canada. There ought to be a special term for the Canadian versions, but I have no idea what it would be.

Again, as someone pointed out, incredibly patient judges.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

notorial dissent wrote:And yet while it claims not to be a sovrun, it certainly talks the talk and walks the walk as they say. Something or other about ducks from there on as I recall. I guess the Queen's portrait is their version of the gold fringe farrago here.

Quoting my granpa: "Honey, you can call that chicken a duck, but it'll still sink when it hits the water."

Actually, a chicken will float when it hits the water, but not for long. I well recall the escapades of Lumphead the Adventure Chicken.

Goodness is about what you do. Not what you pray to. T. Pratchett
Always be a moving target. L.M. Bujold

And Martin gets himself in even deeper by pestering the judge at his home. Since the judge refused to accept irrelevant documents in court he obviously wanted them hand-delivered by special constable to his front door. I don't think this is going to end well for him. As some posters have noted the judge is incredibly patient but I don't think this is going to last if it devolves to stalking.

4] A problem has arisen here, in that Darren Martin engaged the services of a provincial civil constable to try to deliver his most recently filed pleadings to me at my home. This is improper. First of all, a provincial civil constable should not be serving this sort of documentation on anybody, given the oath required in para. 5(1)(a) of the Police Services Act.3 These documents were not civil process, if they were process at all. Furthermore, anyone involved in the service of process in this Province ought to be aware that court pleadings must not be delivered directly to a judge. Parties seeking to file pleadings must do so at court; this allows staff to ensure that the judge see only that material that she or he should see. This necessary and crucial screening function is thwarted when parties attempt to deliver documents to the judge outside court. Direct contact gives rise to a real risk of the administration of justice being compromised. What happened here must not be repeated. It is the responsibility of those charged with the superintendence of the Police Services Act to ensure that civil constables are trained and directed in such a way that they do not engage in actions which may interfere with the administration of justice. I am confident that the Department of Justice will be dealing appropriately with this concern.

• Any written material sought to be filed with the Court by either party or by the amicus shall be filed with the Court administration office, either by personal delivery, postal mail, private courier or fax; no party is to deliver to the Court, or arrange to have delivered to the Court, any documentation of any nature whatsoever to any location other than at the Court administration office at the Pictou Justice Centre.

• No civil constable is to deliver material intended for the Court in this case on behalf of Darren Martin to any location other than the Court administration office at the Justice Centre in Pictou, and no civil constable is to serve or attempt to serve such documents on a judge.

• Darren Martin is not to contact or attempt to contact the judge in this matter, either directly or indirectly, either orally or by way of written submission, except in open Court or as provided for in this order.

• The Court may vary this order should the interests of justice so require.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

What is a "Civil Constable" ? It looks a bit like part of the duties of a bailiff (not a court bailiff type bailiff for those of you in the US). I suspect they may be self employed and paid to serve papers which may be what happened here. If so, said "Civil Constable" might have some difficulty getting a new licence or permit or whatever they need to trade. The latter paragraphs look like the judge is making it absolutely clear that anyone doing anything like this again faces contempt of court charges.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:What is a "Civil Constable" ? It looks a bit like part of the duties of a bailiff (not a court bailiff type bailiff for those of you in the US). I suspect they may be self employed and paid to serve papers which may be what happened here. If so, said "Civil Constable" might have some difficulty getting a new licence or permit or whatever they need to trade. The latter paragraphs look like the judge is making it absolutely clear that anyone doing anything like this again faces contempt of court charges.

It's a title unique to the province of Nova Scotia. Essentially private process servers and bailiffs with a fancy name. Here's the link to the application form if you're interested. As you can see from the form, not much required to get approval.

COUNSEL:
Constantin Draghici-Vasilescu, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Darren Martin, on his own behalf.
Stephen Robertson, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, amicus curiae.

The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood:—

[1] Darren Martin stands charged of four violations of para. 239(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), and twenty-two violations of para. 327(1) of the Excise Tax Act. Trial dates are fixed presently for 23, 24, 25 and 26 October 2012.

[2] Pursuant to my order of 28 August 20121 closing pleadings in this matter and requiring an application for leave in order for a party to make further pre-trial applications, Darren Martin filed with the court administration office on 16 October 2012 a document seeking leave to apply to the Court on 19 September 2012 for an unspecified form of judicial remedy in relation to the Crown's onus to prove identity and territorial jurisdiction; additionally, Mr. Martin seeks leave to apply for an order from the Court compelling the Crown to disclose:

documentation from the Crown proving the existence of a TITLE, DEED, BILL OF SALE, and proof of EXPROPRIATION of the land here in Canada from the Native Community as I have proof ALL Crown land IS NATIVE LAND and the Federal Prosecutor does not have legal standing in this case. I intend to ask for this information in the form of a DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE. Also, I would like to file an Affidavit regarding ownership of the lands in Canada as well as case law and other documents, proving the contents of the Affidavit are correct and accurate. [Sic]

[3] With respect to submissions regarding identification and jurisdiction, these are elements of the alleged offences, and their proof will, I presume, be offered by the Crown in the course of trial. No pre-trial application is needed; accordingly, leave to file pre-trial materials is not granted.

[4] With respect to the issue regarding title to lands, proof on this point is not required of the Crown, and no admissible defence rests on it. Evidence on this argument will not be admissible at trial. Leave to file documentation on this proposed argument is not granted.

[5] As this trial is scheduled to start tomorrow, and as Mr. Martin is self-represented, I believe it useful to cover certain fundamentals regarding evidence and arguments which this Court will be able to receive in reaching a verdict.

[6] This Court sits within the territorial boundaries of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia is a province of Canada. Canada is a federation with a constitution. That basic law established the Government of Canada, and reconstituted the Government of Nova Scotia. The Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have executive, legislative and judicial branches. Over the years, those various branches of government have done certain things, including:

• the valid enactment of the Income Tax Act (Canada);

• the valid enactment of the Excise Tax Act (Canada);

• the creation of this Court and making me a judge of it with the authority–indeed, the mandatory jurisdiction–to try certain cases, including the one involving Mr. Martin;

• conferred upon the Federal Prosecution Service and its lawyers the authority to prosecute the charges against Mr. Martin that are now before the Court.

[1] The Constitution and other laws recognize that persons charged with offences enjoy an array of civil rights which they may exercise in making full answer and defence in a public prosecution. However, those rights do not extend to challenging the things that I have listed above, or to making the sorts of arguments that Mr. Martin has sought to advance thus far in his submissions to the Court. Furthermore, this Court, not being a section 96 court, does not have the jurisdiction to make declarations of statute invalidity.

[2] Mr. Martin remains entitled to being represented at his trial by counsel. But that is something the Court cannot compel him to do, as advisable as it might be.

ORDER ACCORDINGLY

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

[2] Mr. Martin remains entitled to being represented at his trial by counsel. But that is something the Court cannot compel him to do, as advisable as it might be.

Although I am retired I still, from time to time, putter about at my old job. This occasionally includes testifying as an expert witness for the Crown (your IRS) in the Canadian Tax Court. I've been involved in two recent cases that quickly went down blind alleys because the taxpayer's agent (the same individual in both, not a lawyer, in fact with no professional qualifications at all) was totally clueless about tax law, court procedure, and the requirements necessary to overcome the Crown's case and win the appeal. At the last of the two hearings the Court allowed the taxpayer an adjournment but not just for the requested reason (medical emergency). The Court also recommended that the agent get legal advice about how things actually operated in the real world of court procedure and tax law rather than how the agent thought they operated in the dream-world inside his head. The judge pretty well said that it was in the taxpayer's best interest that he get somebody competent to represent him. The Crown's lawyer told me (and I agree) that the agent won't do that. He seems to have that blend of ignorance, incompetence and total self-confidence that drives your sovereign movement.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

notorial dissent wrote:Sounds like a pretty good summation of most of our sovrun gurus, with the inevitable same end results.

So the Canadian Tax courts allow for someone, not a lawyer/legal professional, to attempt to represent another person before them?

There are two levels of Tax Court, informal and regular although the same judges preside at both. Regular is the same as the US Tax Court, lawyers only and all court rules apply. The informal level is for (supposedly) a quick resolution of the small stuff, under $12,000 tax at stake, sort of like small claims court. At informal anything goes, the rules are relaxed and taxpayers have a lot more latitude to play around. Anybody can represent a taxpayer at informal, no professional qualifications are required. Both of the cases I'm involved with involved more than $12,000 tax but the taxpayers waived any right to any tax over $12,000 even if they won. This allowed them to go informal because, I assume, the regular court rules would have cost them too much. However these two guys are lead cases on a whole bunch of taxpayers who claimed over $2,000,000 of deductions so there is significant tax at stake.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

Does sound a bit like our small claims courts, but they, in my experience, specifically prohibit lawyers or "agents" being involved, and it has to be the actual person involved doing the case.

I understand what the informal process is abound think it not a bad idea, but do think letting "agents" stand in for the party not such a good idea, as I think your judges are finding. A fool representing himself is one thing, but letting yet another fool stand in for him is not.

The big cases sound reminiscent of out OID cases that have been hitting the IRS with big amounts the last couple of years, but they have finally wised up to those, I think, and are starting to catch them before they get too far.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Canada and Great Britain have their own sovereign movements. These are the "Freeman-on-the-land" movements, and they're U.S. exports...basically, our sovereigns taking their ideas to other countries. What's outstandingly hilarious is when a Canadian "freeman" files documents in a Canadian court asserting rights under the U.S. Constitution (always the version predating the 11th Amendment and usually including "Article the First" and the "Titles of Nobility Amendment," neither of which were ratified by the states) and the Uniform Commercial Code. And the last time I checked, the UCC and the U.S. Constitution don't apply in...Canada....

Just going to prove that the practitioners don't actually read what htey are trying to practice.

One of my favorite bits of humor in some of the old forums was when one the Canadian nutjobs was ranting on about taxes and stuff and then going on about the filings he was making to detax himself or whatever, and the stuff they were quoting had to do with US Tax law, the Constitution-ours, and the UCC, and they were serious in that this was somehow the magic bullet to dealing with the Canadian tax agency and courts, which of course, it wasn't.

I just don't see the Canadian courts being anything but mildly bemused when they start filing and ranting about any of that, as it so doesn't apply to anything in Canada.

But then we have some of our home grown nutjobs who are convinced for some reason that the UCC is a universal law and applies to everything and everyone-which it doesn't, considering it even varies from state to state.

I would imagine it gets even sillier in the UK. We don't get much of what is going on there, but some of what I have seen is right on par with what our domestic fruitcakes are doing, and with equal if not even more amusing affect, since the British authorities seem to have even less of a sense of humor about it than ours for some reason.

The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

notorial dissent wrote:I would imagine it gets even sillier in the UK. We don't get much of what is going on there, but some of what I have seen is right on par with what our domestic fruitcakes are doing, and with equal if not even more amusing affect, since the British authorities seem to have even less of a sense of humor about it than ours for some reason.

I would have to check but I think one problem sovereign citizens would have in the UK is that only High Court (or above) decisions create precedents (this is a big IIRC). You can not appear in High Court without representation and that costs big bucks (or pounds, actually), something none of these idiots have. Further, no lawyer would take on their gibberish because of the damage it would do to them professionally. So, the ability to get a legal decision which has any standing tends to zero.

notorial dissent wrote:I would imagine it gets even sillier in the UK. We don't get much of what is going on there, but some of what I have seen is right on par with what our domestic fruitcakes are doing, and with equal if not even more amusing affect, since the British authorities seem to have even less of a sense of humor about it than ours for some reason.

I would have to check but I think one problem sovereign citizens would have in the UK is that only High Court (or above) decisions create precedents (this is a big IIRC). You can not appear in High Court without representation and that costs big bucks (or pounds, actually), something none of these idiots have. Further, no lawyer would take on their gibberish because of the damage it would do to them professionally. So, the ability to get a legal decision which has any standing tends to zero.

And the saga continues with procedural squabbling. At least Mr. Martin has no grounds for complain that the court isn't treating him fairly. To quote:

[9] Before concluding this judgment, I feel it important to note that the submissions by the Crown on this specific application were, in my view, of limited assistance to the Court. The focus of the Crown seemed to be on pigeon-holing Mr. Martin as a category of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument ["OPCA"] Litigant, a description adopted by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads v. Meads.5 While that judgment is of immense benefit to trial Courts in managing cases defended by improperly guided, self-represented or agent-represented parties, it underscores the critical importance of maintaining focus on the merits of the case.6 The argument adopted by the Crown in its written brief is, in essence, that Mr. Martin, as an OPCA litigant, has brought unmeritorious applications in the past; therefore, his present application should be assessed as being unmeritorious, as well. This is a formal fallacy. The fact that Mr. Martin has previously made unsupportable applications, does not mean that the Court must dismiss axiomatically every application he might bring on in the future. In this case, Mr. Martin has raised a triable issue: at what point in time did the CRA audit of his business evolve into an offence-focussed investigation? The Crown's submissions regarding the purported authorship of Mr. Martin's present argument–allegedly a Mr. Kimery, an individual who has, himself, been involved in litigation with the CRA in another province–were similarly unhelpful, as they amounted merely to an ad hominem rebuttal. In my view, it matters naught who helped Mr. Martin put together his application; what matters here is the legal merit of the application. Mr. Martin's application this time around had merit and was arguable. What it lacked was persuasive evidence.

Counsel-table arrangements

[11] Lastly, I intend to deal with a procedural issue that came to my attention on October 23. The Crown presented to the Court as a fait accomplis its decision to have the lead CRA investigator seated at the counsel table in Court to assist the prosecutor. Quite frankly, I have never been presented with such a seating arrangement before, and it is simply not acceptable to the Court. The investigator will, in all likelihood, be called upon to testify as a witness. His proper place will be the witness stand, when required; otherwise, he should be seated in the gallery of the Court, or remain without, should a witness-exclusion order be sought and granted. The Court is not an apparatus of the executive branch, and the counsel table is reserved for counsel and self-represented parties.